NationStates Jolt Archive

Anybody notice how high-ranking conservatives insist on referring to their opposition as the "Democrat Party"? It had always struck me as odd -- I'd always assumed it was willful ignorance. But apparently, it is a deliberate linguistic strategy that goes back to before the Great Depression.

From Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005):
The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

Hertzberg noted that Republicans "as far back as the Harding Administration" have referred to the "Democrat Party," including late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who "made it a regular part of his arsenal of insults," and former Sen. Bob Dole, who "denounced 'Democrat wars' ... in his 1976 Vice-Presidential debate with former Sen. Walter Mondale."

Further, Hertzberg wrote that "among those of the Republican persuasion," the use of "'Democrat Party' is now nearly universal" thanks to "Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control."

That last part strikes me as vaguely Orwellian -- Newspeak, anyone? How about "Politics and the English Language (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm)"?

What does it say about the Republicans when they feel compelled to use juvenile, ignorant insults such as these?

Anybody notice how high-ranking conservatives insist on referring to their opposition as the "Democrat Party"? It had always struck me as odd -- I'd always assumed it was willful ignorance. But apparently, it is a deliberate linguistic strategy that goes back to before the Great Depression.

From Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005):


That last part strikes me as vaguely Orwellian -- Newspeak, anyone? How about "Politics and the English Language (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm)"?

What does it say about the Republicans when they feel compelled to use juvenile, ignorant insults such as these?

What does it mean when Democrats use the playground-insult "anti-choice"? Are insults good for the goose, but not for the gander, hmmm?

When someone calls it the "Democrat" Party, I accept that the person knows absolutely nothing about American politics so I stop reading or listening. The same goes for anyone who refers to John Kerry's middle name as "Francoise" or "Frenchy."

What does it mean when Democrats use the playground-insult "anti-choice"? Are insults good for the goose, but not for the gander, hmmm?
Well, that's actually true. Opponents of abortion are against the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have one. It may be a loaded term, but it is an accurate one.

"Democrat" as an adjective, however, is a deliberate perversion of the other side's name in order to make it sound ugly and insulting. The party leadership has also explicitly said that that negative connotation is their goal.

Read this (http://www.amazon.com/Talking-Right-Conservatives-Latte-Drinking-Hollywood-Loving/dp/1586483862/sr=8-1/qid=1163906752/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0592810-2892867?ie=UTF8&s=books)

What does it say about the Republicans when they feel compelled to use juvenile, ignorant insults such as these?

They're meanies and their mothers didn't teach them manners?

Read this (http://www.amazon.com/Talking-Right-Conservatives-Latte-Drinking-Hollywood-Loving/dp/1586483862/sr=8-1/qid=1163906752/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0592810-2892867?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Yeah, I saw that on Colbert a few weeks ago. He missed "terrorist-loving" and "San Francisco value-espousing", though. Never quite understood what that last one meant.

"San Francisco value-espousing", though. Never quite understood what that last one meant.

something that rhymes with steers and is the end of a joke. . . . .

... against the right of a woman to choose...

You use a loaded term to describe a loaded term. Awesome!

Anybody notice how high-ranking conservatives insist on referring to their opposition as the "Democrat Party"? It had always struck me as odd -- I'd always assumed it was willful ignorance. But apparently, it is a deliberate linguistic strategy that goes back to before the Great Depression.

From Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005):


That last part strikes me as vaguely Orwellian -- Newspeak, anyone? How about "Politics and the English Language (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm)"?

What does it say about the Republicans when they feel compelled to use juvenile, ignorant insults such as these?

Yes, and I've also noticed how CN fucking N is doing the same thing. I was watching the ticker under Press-Secretary Snowjob which kept talking about "Democrat" Senators.

Fucking assholes. Do they ever once refer to the president as "largely seen as incompotent President Bush?" No.

Just goes to show that all those people who call it the "Clinton News Network" can shove it up their assholes so that they can actually see what's on it.

What does it mean when Democrats use the playground-insult "anti-choice"? Are insults good for the goose, but not for the gander, hmmm?
Why is that an insult? It's an accurate depiction of the stance, certainly more accurate than "pro-life."

What does it mean when Democrats use the playground-insult "anti-choice"? Are insults good for the goose, but not for the gander, hmmm?

Because Republicans aren't "Pro-life." They are anti-choice. They oppose the right of women to choose whether or not they'll have an abortion, which is itself broadly "pro-life." However they are also pro-death penalty and pro-war.

But when the pro-life option is also the pro-choice option, they invariably choose the pro-death/anti-choice position over the pro-choice/pro-life position.

They're anti-medical marijuana. Which would save lives, but Republicans can't stand that it gives patients a choice.

Dubya passed the "futile care law" which took away from parents the right of choice on providing life-support for terminally ill or injured patients.

And Tom Delay, former majority leader, refered to the sweatshops of the Marianas island as "representing everything that's good about the republican party." And these sweatshops force women to have abortions when they don't want to have them.

This conclusively demonstrates that what Republicans don't like about abortion is not that it kills a fetus. It's that it allows women to make a choice about their lives. Because they've got nothing against people dying as long as they have no choice in the matter. Even if the goverment could help them by merely getting out of the way.

Yeah, I saw that on Colbert a few weeks ago. He missed "terrorist-loving" and "San Francisco value-espousing", though. Never quite understood what that last one meant.

You know, I lived in San Francisco for two years not long ago. While I was there, I didn't own a car because I could get around using a terrific public transportation system. We raised the city minimum wage to over eight bucks an hour. We voted to provide universal health care for all city residents. We got to choose between a Green and a Democrat (who would be considered a liberal almost anywhere else) for mayor. Give me all of those values you can, far as I'm concerned.

Silly Republicans. There's no such thing as the "Democrat Party," though I am a member of the Democratic Party.

Yes, it's unfair, and it's mean, but they're going to keep doing it.

Most english-language political terminology in the United States has had its' meaning effectively warped and distorted throughout the last century - warped to the extent that today, here on the NSG forums it is a routine occurence for us non-Americans to find ourselves talking at cross-purposes when interacting with Yanks.

You know, I lived in San Francisco for two years not long ago. While I was there, I didn't own a car because I could get around using a terrific public transportation system. We raised the city minimum wage to over eight bucks an hour. We voted to provide universal health care for all city residents. We got to choose between a Green and a Democrat (who would be considered a liberal almost anywhere else) for mayor. Give me all of those values you can, far as I'm concerned.

Yes, lol, the Republican Party is the 3rd party in a San Francisco election.

what????? How is "democratic" an insult? THAT'S HOW THEY REFER TO THEMSELVES!

Oh, wait, maybe those evil, scheming Republicans forced them to talk about themselves using that derrogatory word. Well, if that's the case, I have a whole slew of words that I can call them, most of which would get me kicked out of NS if I were to post them :p .

Even still, assuming that "democratic" was derrogatory (which it's not, I mean, come on...), that's NOTHING compared to what the democratics (*snicker*) call the Republicans on a daily basis, while nobody bats an eye. But when someone thinks the Republicans insult the Democrats, watch out, WWIII is about to erupt

Yes, lol, the Republican Party is the 3rd party in a San Francisco election.

It's not even really a third party. In the last mayor's race that resulted in a runoff, the Republican finished 7th behind 5 Dems and a Green, if memory serves. God, I miss that city.

what????? How is "democratic" an insult? THAT'S HOW THEY REFER TO THEMSELVES!

Oh, wait, maybe those evil, scheming Republicans forced them to talk about themselves using that derrogatory word. Well, if that's the case, I have a whole slew of words that I can call them, most of which would get me kicked out of NS if I were to post them :p .

Even still, assuming that "democratic" was derrogatory (which it's not, I mean, come on...), that's NOTHING compared to what the democratics (*snicker*) call the Republicans on a daily basis, while nobody bats an eye. But when someone thinks the Republicans insult the Democrats, watch out, WWIII is about to erupt
You know, you might actually try reading the opening post before you go and make a fool of yourself. Just a suggestion.

that's NOTHING compared to what the democratics (*snicker*) call the Republicans on a daily basis, while nobody bats an eye.

What, flatulent?

Fat, flatulent gits?

Fat, flatulent manipulative gits? That's the one.

What does it say about the Republicans when they feel compelled to use juvenile, ignorant insults such as these?
Democrat Party, Democratic Party ...what's the big difference?

Democrat Party, Democratic Party ...what's the big difference?

Personally, I think the usage that some Republicans use (in an attempt to divorce the name of their opponents' party from the idea of democracy) just makes them sound like idiots who don't know how to use adjectives.

This conclusively demonstrates that what Republicans don't like about abortion is not that it kills a fetus. It's that it allows women to make a choice about their lives. Because they've got nothing against people dying as long as they have no choice in the matter. Even if the goverment could help them by merely getting out of the way.
You are correct. I am anti-choice/pro-life, and I am extremely anti-war. I can't see how supporting war and being against abortion is anything other than vile hypocrisy.

Personally, I think the usage that some Republicans use (in an attempt to divorce the name of their opponents' party from the idea of democracy) just makes them sound like idiots who don't know how to use adjectives.
Yeah, it does indeed sound retarded.

Same way they use the 'Death Tax' to mean the estate tax, IE Paris Hilton tax. (Which only affects you if you're rich, yet they try to covince everyone that it means if you die and you have 5 bucks the government will take it.

Same way they use the 'Death Tax' to mean the estate tax, IE Paris Hilton tax. (Which only affects you if you're rich, yet they try to covince everyone that it means if you die and you have 5 bucks the government will take it.

Or the Clear Skies Initiative which allows for greater pollution.

Democrat Party, Democratic Party ...what's the big difference?

Say "Democratic Party"
Give it a few seconds, think about what it feels like to say it

Then say "Democrat party
Think about that one. Doesn't it just sound wrong? It also puts the emphasis on "Crat". It makes the word rhyme with words like "Autocrat", "Plotocrat", and others that have bad connotations.

It assuredly only has a small effect, but it was obviously enough for the republicans to change their speech patters, to start calling it the "Democrat party" Rather than the "Democratic party.

Same way they use the 'Death Tax' to mean the estate tax, IE Paris Hilton tax. (Which only affects you if you're rich, yet they try to covince everyone that it means if you die and you have 5 bucks the government will take it.

Isnt calling it the "Paris Hilton Tax" the same thing as what the republicans are doing, but in reverse. You are attempting to pull up support by naming it after someone who is well known for their wasteful extravagance. Both parties do it, and neither is relatively subtle about it. If the "Democratics" want to fight it, why dont they just keep referring to themselves that way, kind of like the 'USian' fad? just keep using it.

Isnt calling it the "Paris Hilton Tax" the same thing as what the republicans are doing, but in reverse. You are attempting to pull up support by naming it after someone who is well known for their wasteful extravagance. Both parties do it, and neither is relatively subtle about it. If the "Democratics" want to fight it, why dont they just keep referring to themselves that way, kind of like the 'USian' fad? just keep using it.

See, now you're intentionally screwing it again. They are the Democrats of the Democratic party. Get it right.